• Introduction
  
  
• Vision of School Improvement
  
  
• School Mission
  
  
• School Philosophy
  
  
• Unique Features

• Overview
  

Component One: Improving Teaching and Student Achievement

• Introduction
  
  
• Data for New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessments (HSPA)
  • Table 1 - Language Arts Literacy
  • Table 2 - Mathematics
    
    
• Data for NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
  • Table 3 - Language Arts Literacy
  • Online slideshow of Language Arts Literacy sub-group data
    
  • Table 4 - Mathematics
  • Online slideshow of Mathematics sub group data
    
  • Table 5 - Parent and Community Involvement
    
    
• Goals and Strategies to Improve Teaching and Student Performance
  • Goal 1.0 Student Performance (HSPA)
    
  • Strategy 1.1 - Data-Driven Instruction and Assessment
  • Strategy 1.2 - School wide Initiatives
  • Strategy 1.3 - Parent Support of Instruction
    
    
  • Goal 2.0 Student Performance (NCLB - AYP)
    • Strategy 2.1 - Instructional Improvement Services
      
    • Strategy 2.2 - Community and Business Support

• Introduction
  
  
• Data for High School Graduation
  • Table 6 - High School Graduation Rate
    
    
• Data for Student Attendance and Dropout Rates
  
  • Table 7 - Student Attendance Rate
  • Table 8 - Dropout Rates
    
    
• Goals and Strategies to Improve High School Graduation
  • Goal 3.0 High School Graduation Rate
    
    • Strategy 3.1 - Support and Mentoring Students
    • Strategy 3.2 - Student Attendance Plan

• Approach
• Pilot Project - Online Slideshow
• Improvement Phases and Tools
• Network of Data-Driven Teams

Under construction...

Back to top

DATA-DRIVEN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Vision Of School Improvement - A vision is a compelling description that motivates and focuses people, time, and money; drives day-to-day instruction; and anchors all improvement efforts. We have developed the following vision statement to guide our school improvement efforts throughout the first decade of the 21st century.

Back to top

School Mission - "Failure is Not an Option; Success is the Only Option" is our mission statement. Our mission statement is the foundation for delivering a quality, comprehensive education to all students. Our mission includes ensuring that all students receive the highest level of education possible in a safe and nurturing learning environment. To carry out our mission, we will maximize time on task to maximize student achievement. This means that all students and staff will articulate and employ strategies that reflect our commitment to become a high performance high school.

We will know that we are accomplishing our vision and mission when our graduating students can:

1. learn and improve continuously;
   
   
2. perform at the optimal level on all high stakes testing;
   
   
3. think critically, solve problems, and communicate effectively;
   
   
4. operate state of the art technologies and information systems;
   
   
5. enter and be successful in college programs or workplaces;
   
   
6. function intelligently as consumers in a technological and democratic society;
   
   
7.  make a valuable contribution to society.

School Philosophy - We believe that all students can learn and that all students will learn at John F. Kennedy High School.

Unique Features - We are unique from other high schools in the following ways:

1. We align and practice the ten essential steps of High Schools That Work (HSTW) and we follow the mandates of the Paterson School District’s Secondary Initiatives through a data-driven approach to school improvement.
   
   
2. We use a data-driven instructional improvement strategy through which we plan, teach, score, and analyze our best practice lessons and share our best practice lessons on our school web site.

Back to top

ACTION PLAN

Overview - Our school improvement plan includes two components focused on three priority goals: (1.0) student performance on HSPA, (2.0) student performance on NCLB adequate yearly progress, and (3.0) increases in our high school graduation rate.  In our approach, data-driven school improvement sources (Tables 1-7) are used to develop, implement, and evaluate strategies and activities to reach these priority goals. We view data about parent and community support of instruction, student attendance, and dropouts as means to an end and not priority outcome goals.  This approach keeps us focused on student learning and quality teaching while providing a manageable scope of work for on-going school improvement. Moreover, our approach provides a clear focus for targeting and coordinating the support of services such as parental involvement and special education on teaching and student learning.

COMPONENT ONE: IMPROVING TEACHING AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Introduction - For 2006-2007 and thereafter, John F. Kennedy High School will strive to achieve a 100% pass rate for first time takers on the HSPA assessments to meet this graduation testing requirement. We will meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by applying a stronger version of the NCLB provision known as Safe Harbor. Under the Safe Harbor provision if a school does not meet the statewide goal in a given year, the school will still make AYP if it has reduced the percentage of students that are partially proficient by 10% from the previous year. We will employ a 10-percentage point increase from the previous year. Safe Harbor applies to our total student population and each student subgroup. Also, the graduation/attendance rate indicator must be met under Safe Harbor. Following these steps, our school can steadily decrease its percentage of students who are partially proficient every year and make AYP based on continuous improvement. 

Findings:  On the 2006 administration of the Language Arts Literacy Proficiency Assessment, 48.7% of our students performed at or above the passing score.


Contributing Factors: Students enter our school at reading levels of three or more years behind. There are major gaps in phonics and fluency that are not addressed in earlier grades.  The absence of diagnostic screenings, and across the board intervention programs in the middle grades and on the high school level results in students being deficient in fluency. Consequently, they experience great difficulty in comprehension. They enter the 9th grade already at a disadvantage, and their frustration levels are compounded by more difficult work, and inconsistencies in curriculum and instruction within language classes and across disciplines.

Another contributing factor is the lack of correlation between special needs, bilingual and English. SPED and bilingual curriculums do not align with English and the Core Curriculum Content Standards.  All three areas appear to work independently of each other and in some cases without curriculums that address test standards.  The curriculum in these two areas must align with language arts in course offerings, skills, and the strategies taught. Students in these two areas are simply thrust into testing unprepared. As a result, there is a negative impact on our scores.

Student attendance and student mobility across districts and states is yet another factory that affect performance on the HSPA.  Student who are on grade level and attend school regularly for the 2.5 years before the HSPA will past the test.  Typically, statistics indicate that general education students show significant growth in their reading and comprehension skills, but many do not experience enough growth to gain proficiency on the state standardized test. This is due to students entering JFKHS with such low skills as well as having poor or sporadic attendance that impedes their ability to learn the required skills with accuracy and proficiency.


 Priority Needs: Increase the number of data-driven lessons and assessments targeted to student learning gaps in phonics, fluency, and comprehension, especially in the ninth grade; correlate data driven lessons based on Core Curriculum Content Standards for SPED and bilingual students; and institute a process for analyzing the results of each lesson in content team and interdisciplinary teams. Continue support from the Instructional Management Team and LearningFront™ consultants to facilitate the process and continually improve our Instructional Improvement Strategy.

Findings:  On the 2006 administration of the Mathematics Proficiency Assessment, 41.8% of our students performed at or above the passing score.


Contributing Factors: Our school has a large Special Education Population 24.5% in the 11th grade.  No Child Left Behind regulations expect to see these children pass. The results speak themselves 2% were able to pass.  The students in the Limited English population that do not quickly exit the Bilingual Program have serious gaps in the instruction they received in their native countries. Those with ability quickly exit the BL program, learn English and do very well in classes. But there is a group that we are not able to take to a passing level.  In the Mathematics Department, we have a small group of teachers that teach juniors in the applications classes.  I have been trying to increase this group. Two of the new teachers had very low passing rates. They will not teach these classes next year. Those that teach the Application III classes meet regularly and discuss lessons and new strategies. We will bring new teachers into this group and remove those that had low results.  The master teachers get very good results.  We are determined to improve passing rates. We have no control on the Special Education and the BL, but we will get higher scores in 2008.


Priority Needs: Increase the number of data-driven lessons and assessments involving mathematics in all academic classrooms and institute a process for analyzing the results of each lesson in content team and interdisciplinary teams. Continue support from the Instructional Management Team and LearningFront™ consultants to facilitate the process and continually improve our Instructional Improvement Strategy.

Findings:  On the 2005 administration of the Language Arts Literacy test, 49.4% of our students demonstrated proficient performance, thereby not meeting AYP for all students. However, we met AYP for the Hispanic (81%) and Econ/Disadvantaged (82%) student sub-groups. We did not meet the Language Arts Literacy AYP for special education, LEP, white, African American, Asian pacific student sub groups.


Note: Since the same state assessment is used for NCLB and HSPA purposes, the contributing factors and priority needs presented after table 1 apply here, also.

Findings:  On the 2005 administration of the Mathematics test, 50.3% of our students demonstrated proficient performance, thereby not meeting AYP for all students. However, we met AYP for the White (70%) and Asian/Pacific Island (66%) student sub-groups. We did not meet the Mathematics AYP for special education, LEP, African American, Hispanic, and Economic/Disadvantaged student sub groups.


Note: Since the same state assessment is used for NCLB and HSPA purposes, the contributing factors and priority needs presented after Table 2 apply here, also.

Goals and Strategies to Improve Teaching and Student Performance

Goal 1.0 Student Performance (HSPA): By June 2010, 100% of the students at John F. Kennedy High School will pass on their first attempt the High School Proficiency Assessments in Language Arts Literacy and Mathematics required to graduate from high school. (Based on data in Tables 1 and 2)

• Objective 1.1 (HSPA): Between July 2006 and June 2007, the percentage of students at John F. Kennedy High School who initially take and pass the HSPA Language Arts Literacy assessment will increase from 48.7% to 100%.
  
  
• Objective 1.2 (HSPA): Between July 2006 and June 2007, the percentage of students at John F. Kennedy High School who initially take and pass the HSPA Mathematics assessment will increase from 43.0% to 100%.

Goal 2.0 Student Performance (NCLB - AYP): By June 2010, the John F. Kennedy High School will meet or exceed the New Jersey State Benchmarks for Adequate Yearly Progress of 85.0% in Language Arts Literacy and 74.0% in Mathematics.
(Based on data in Tables 3 and 4)

• Objective 2.1 (Language Arts Literacy - AYP): Between July 2006 and June 2007, the percentage of students at John F. Kennedy High School who score in the proficient and advanced levels, as measured by the HSPA Language Arts Literacy Assessment, will increase from 49.4% to 59.4% for all students and in all subgroups to meet or exceed the school's Adequate Yearly Progress Annual Measurable Objective.
  
  
• Objective 2.2 (Mathematics - AYP): Between July 2006 and June 2007, the percentage of students at John F. Kennedy High School who score in the proficient and advanced levels, as measured by the HSPA Mathematics Assessment, will increase from 50.3% to 60.3% for all students and in all subgroups to meet or exceed the school's Adequate Yearly Progress Annual Measurable Objective.
  
  
• Note: Goals and objectives 1.0 and 2.0 are based on the New Jersey DOE approach of using the High School Proficiency Assessments for Language Arts Literacy and Mathematics as the measures to meet the reading and mathematics requirements of NCLB at the high school level.  These assessments are also administered to students to meet two high school graduation test requirements.

COMPONENT TWO: IMPROVING HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE

Introduction - New Jersey provides four ways known as graduation types to graduate from high schools.  These include regular students who pass HSPA tests, students who complete the SRA process or LEP SRA process, and students who are exempt from the HSPA. Table 5 provides data from the NCLB Report for all of these types. According the New Jersey DOE, the graduation rate will be used in the future as the secondary indicator for high school AYP calculations. Therefore, we have focused on it as a priority goal. Student attendance and dropout rate data are included in this action plan because of their influence on the graduation rate.

Data for High School Graduation Rate - The graduation rate for schools with seniors is calculated by the formula contained in the approved Accountability Workbook for New Jersey as required by the No Child left Behind Act. Based on the National Center for Education Statistics’ definition, this calculation provides an estimate for the cohort of students that began high school four years ago. The calculation is derived by taking the number of school-year graduates plus the summer graduates following the senior year and dividing by a combination of the following: School year plus summer graduates plus number of grade 9 dropouts four years prior, plus number of grade 10 dropouts three years prior, plus number of grade 11 dropouts two years prior, plus number of grade 12 dropouts for this report card year. The product is then multiplied by 100 to get the graduation rate. Table  5 indicates our high school graduation rate.

Findings: In 2006, 62.0% of our students graduated from our high school.


Contributing Factors: "Under construction..."


Priority Needs: "Under construction..."

Findings: In the 2005-06 school year our student attendance rate was 86.5%.


Contributing Factors: "Under construction..."


Priority Needs: "Under construction..."

Goal 3.0 High School Graduation Rate: By June 2010, John F. Kennedy High School will meet or exceed the (UC%) state standard for high school graduation.
(Based on data in Tables 5, 6, and 7)

• Objective 3.1: Between July 2006 and June 2007, the percentage of students graduating from John F. Kennedy High School will increase from (UC% - 2006 data) to (UC%).
  
  
• Objective 3.2: Between July 2006 and June 2007, the percentage of students attending John F. Kennedy High School will increase from 94.5% to (UC%).

SCHOOL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Approach. Our school management system is a data-driven, collaborative, and accountable approach to deliver quality educational programs to our students in the face of increased expectations for student achievement, high school graduation, and attendance.

Our School Leadership Committee provides overall coordination and support to the principal and other teams in our management system. Our Instructional Management Team (IMT) is responsible for day-to-day planning, developing, coordinating, evaluating, and improving data-driven instruction and assessment and school-based professional development.  This role includes supporting and communicating the efforts of classroom teachers to plan, teach, assess, and analyze the results of standards-based lessons and assessments related to our priorities of language arts literacy and mathematics and other subjects and career pathways that support our school vision and mission. The IMT applies the school vision, interprets student assessment data, identifies the priority content standards teachers are expected to teach, and benchmarks best practices to improve teaching, student achievement, and professional development. The IMT advises the School Leadership Committee on initiatives, issues, and results associated with instructional improvement. The Team posts its agenda and results on the school’s web site for all John F. Kennedy stakeholders http://www.learningfront.com/jfk.

Improvement Phases and Tools. Our school management system and instructional improvement strategy require teachers and administrators and other stakeholders to improve continuously and to make adjustments along the way in order to stay focused on our vision, goals, and results.  To do this, we have divided the school year into four phases for our Instructional Management Team to provide on-going reports about its efforts to achieve our priority of improving teaching and student achievement on State, Paterson Public Schools, and classroom assessments. 

1. In Phase One (June, July, August), our Instructional Management Team communicates with stakeholders, plans and develops instructional improvement activities for the next year, plans and delivers start-up professional development sessions, develops and aligns new lessons and assessments, field-tests school start-up strategies for September, and completes the first phase progress report to the School Leadership Committee.
   
   
2. In Phase Two (September, October, November), our Instructional Management Team collects instructional improvement baseline data; begins to implement data-driven standards-based instruction and assessment, stakeholder involvement, and support services; administers classroom and HSPA benchmark assessments; monitors milestones; delivers professional development; improves use of technology; completes all start-up phases for new initiatives; and prepares the second phase progress report to the School Leadership Committee.
   
   
3. In Phase Three (December, January, February), our Instructional Management Team adjusts instruction and services based on assessment data and professional judgment, maintains formative assessments, administers classroom and HSPA benchmark assessments, monitors milestones, provides technology resources, continues professional development, and prepares the third phase progress report to the School Leadership Committee.
   
   
4. In Phase Four (March, April, May), our Instructional Management Team adjusts instruction and services based on assessment data and professional judgment, maintains formative assessments, administers classroom and HSPA benchmark assessments, monitors milestones, continues professional development, and prepares the fourth phase progress report to support school improvement planning for the next school year.

Back to top